Received: by 10.223.176.5 with SMTP id f5csp1777514wra; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:21:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2256Teycmd9/t1aYFU7XYm55oOtw2uYXnq9OrbeKBSrDVyW/eCvikgTUmfCpHhVzBq24rpDf X-Received: by 10.98.194.201 with SMTP id w70mr381650pfk.188.1518088866785; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:21:06 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1518088866; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gVfwSaZ1HMSx4rwVvpRcnYaEtVnovbigvSA+5zS4/LHyosw/uDL0eL0l3AgghqLKn2 ZW8bakQ2o+qB5tj8IXMRYzKH1h3OdKszWPKU/e/g/8JemYciAz/NfevhI8wkVNhI7v7a iaPISCfHe9AKI1Y64Lrnm5dSGen6eUaigNlzN12bwEk+Zuqs+11BsZWvRC6HIdp3H0pD Vkk1/Iy+d5Ixex2CeHGB8YN1yAm3Rii1PDU4Z05DSejB3k6LBuVupZXoZJuFGzBAWjO1 bybZBx0JMCi1LiKOMbjHkS2qc4Nhx/FQLQ2itzxXmR5kGdOH21NmGumdFnbBSD0/FsAu DD5Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=SCUUuBGYeXKrmMwNhAC53Z9DF3GYpGpUt1GxmB4yob0=; b=pf4zJQwCgUlX4cMQZiIDyjkUSe/Q92Umo84RiMineE9B6zg79jbSgOcMADHyuukq/4 rANGRfhp3eZnh/U/LUc5/8I4WP8+RsgLbB3y3RrsG+zFESooqkEWy6v7tHfIxMg+wBRn oyjzl2kg/EIyS+ne2FTYVsv31KyTGenbwIxml8agXe0NE08/ePARxpDD48kp1EysvfDj gyRiupG0BaLZitZXplRPW1Yw8ZlMUivxj66PQ+C+9cqz2IMVUNFbZPFbujoQjlfe/QRa S2anhN06/MPxPR6Uv2n1tHE9+UwBq+BY8ArovvuRJbBLQw7S1zB2TinYmm+Bd/00NwUN /vRw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b3-v6si1368876pli.18.2018.02.08.03.20.53; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:21:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752207AbeBHLUI (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:20:08 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33268 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750923AbeBHLUH (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:20:07 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B93380D; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.206.28] (e107814-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.206.28]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE8523F24D; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:20:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] irqchip: gicv3-its: Add helpers for handling 52bit address To: Christoffer Dall Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kristina.martsenko@arm.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, Shanker Donthineni References: <20180109190414.4017-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20180109190414.4017-3-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20180207151023.GD29286@cbox> From: Suzuki K Poulose Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:20:02 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180207151023.GD29286@cbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/02/18 15:10, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Hi Suzuki, > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:03:57PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> Add helpers for encoding/decoding 52bit address in GICv3 ITS BASER >> register. When ITS uses 64K page size, the 52bits of physical address >> are encoded in BASER[47:12] as follows : >> >> Bits[47:16] of the register => bits[47:16] of the physical address >> Bits[15:12] of the register => bits[51:48] of the physical address >> bits[15:0] of the physical address are 0. >> >> Also adds a mask for CBASER address. This will be used for adding 52bit >> support for VGIC ITS. More importantly ignore the upper bits if 52bit >> support is not enabled. >> >> Cc: Shanker Donthineni >> Cc: Marc Zyngier >> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose >> --- >> + >> +/* >> + * With 64K page size, the physical address can be upto 52bit and >> + * uses the following encoding in the GITS_BASER[47:12]: >> + * >> + * Bits[47:16] of the register => bits[47:16] of the base physical address. >> + * Bits[15:12] of the register => bits[51:48] of the base physical address. >> + * bits[15:0] of the base physical address are 0. >> + * Clear the upper bits if the kernel doesn't support 52bits. >> + */ >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_LO_MASK GENMASK_ULL(47, 16) >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_SHIFT 12 >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MOVE (48 - GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_SHIFT) >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MASK (GITS_PA_HI_MASK << GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_SHIFT) >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_TO_PHYS(x) \ >> + (((x) & GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_LO_MASK) | \ >> + (((x) & GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MASK) << GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MOVE)) >> +#define GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_FROM_PHYS(p) \ >> + (((p) & GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_LO_MASK) | \ >> + (((p) >> GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MOVE) & GITS_BASER_ADDR64K_HI_MASK)) > > I don't understand why you need this masking logic embedded in these > macros? Isn't it strictly an error if anyone passes a physical address > with any of bits [51:48] set to the ITS on a system that doesn't support > 52 bit PAs, and just silently masking off those bits could lead to some > interesting cases. What do you think is the best way to handle such cases ? May be I could add some checks where we get those addresses and handle it before we use this macro ? > > This is also notably more difficult to read than the existing macro. > > If anything, I think it would be more useful to have > GITS_BASER_TO_PHYS(x) and GITS_PHYS_TO_BASER(x) which takes into account > CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES. I thought the 64K_PAGES is not kernel page size, but the page-size configured by the "requester" for ITS. So, it doesn't really mean CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES. But the other way around, we can't handle 52bit address unless CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES is selected. Also, if the guest uses a 4K page size and uses a 48 bit address, we could potentially mask Bits[15:12] to 0, which is not nice. So I still think we need to have a special macro for handling addresses with 64K page size in ITS. Thanks Suzuki